From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34B73D57E for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 20:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="atg69u4b" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78F661CA056; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:20:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=+ 1JSYhFP9wi54Wl9AMyQnyiH6JmEhPUNwYw4eHbza2U=; b=atg69u4bIeuahbwdb X+4bKh7PrBPrb3yJFamiWmD3TSr7xQE2nOVZTLVURLQh31IquXO3D7ZQMs/RWfCb gdvvx/rWJMm7CU54b97zvnoFcieVUjz6pfs2jcTTi71RLY+gouknE7RsOlUgDpJo ane8B++yFOaPE9oMqdTnjJV7fE= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 704B01CA054; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:20:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.200.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF52E1CA053; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 15:20:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: what should "git clean -n -f [-d] [-x] " do? Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 12:20:48 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9462B546-AF2C-11EE-BFBB-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com I think the current code makes "-n" take precedence, and ignores "-f". Shouldn't it either (1) error out with "-n and -f cannot be used together", or (2) let "-n" and "-f" follow the usual "last one wins" rule? The latter may be logically cleaner but it is a change that breaks backward compatibility big time in a more dangerous direction, so it may not be desirable in practice, with too big a downside for a too little gain.